4.1 Article

Phenotypic Differences in Alpha 1 Antitrypsin-Deficient Sibling Pairs May Relate to Genetic Variation

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15412550802522320

关键词

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; Alpha 1-Antitrypsin Deficiency; Genetics; Population

资金

  1. National Centre for Research Resources [RR03655]
  2. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [P41RR003655] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency is associated with variable development of airflow obstruction and emphysema. Index patients have greater airflow obstruction than subjects detected by screening, but it is unclear if this reflects smoking differences and/or ascertainment bias, or is due to additional genetic factors. In this study 72 sibling pairs with alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency were compared using lung function measurements and HRCT chest. Tag single nucleotide polymorphisms to cover all common variation in four genes involved in relevant inflammatory pathways (Tumour necrosis factor alpha, Transforming growth Factor beta, Surfactant protein B and Vitamin D binding protein) were genotyped using TaqMan(R) technology and compared between pairs for their frequency and relationship to lung function. 63.5% of non-index siblings had airflow obstruction and 59.5% an FEV1 <80% predicted. Index siblings had lower FEV1 and FEV1/FVC ratio, a higher incidence of emphysema (all P <= 0.001) and lower gas transfer (P = 0.02). There was no correlation of FEV1 between siblings but KCO was significantly correlated (r = 0.42, P = 0.002). Quantitative analyses against lung function showed that a polymorphism in Surfactant protein B was associated with FEV1 (P = 0.002). This result was replicated in a non-sibling group (P = 0.01). Our results show that clinical differences in families with alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency are not solely explained by smoking or ascertainment bias and may be due to variation within genes involved in inflammatory pathways.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据